The Result of European Unification Will be War

The Result of European Unification Will be War

A comment from “Archonix” (an Englishman) at Gates of Vienna, 30 April 2007

The EUSSR[T]he EU economies are not substantially better than they were in the 90s. Many are at the same level, others are worse. Ask any Italian what he thinks of the economy at the moment and if you’re lucky he’ll just shout at you for a few hours. The only reason your dollars don’t seem to go far any more is because the dollar has fallen significantly, not because the euro has risen. The euro is placing a massive inflationary burden on the EU economies, which no longer have the mechanism of altering interest rates in order to control inflation.

Further, there is no mechanism for national debt transfer, as exists in the US, which places further inflationary pressure on individual member states. This pressure is compounded by inflation in members states that are net recipients of EU funding (Spain and Ireland as examples) who are able to cut taxes to miniscule amounts because they’re getting funded by the other EU member states. All of this is combining to produce an inflationary economy with no control mechanism. Unemployment has risen constantly within the euro zone since the euro was introduced, and productivity has fallen just as constantly. National debts are going up, taxes are rising, GDP is falling.

continue reading

Media Is Murder

Media Is Murder

And so is the Democrat Party.

soldier helmet finger

When I first got back from Iraq and I reported that the mainstream media were literally killing our troops, the mainstream media and leftist bloggers shrieked hysterically that such a claim was nothing short of laughable. When I said that the insurgents’ morale was largely shaped by the reportage and editorial bent of the U.S. media, I was also dismissed for making such “ridiculous” statements. Back home these issues are theoreticals. When you are in Iraq, and are still being blown up because the enemy has been led to believe that the Democrats may yet hand him victory, these issues are a matter of life and death. And they make a man very, very angry indeed.

From Victor Davis Hanson on April 26, 2007:

“Sometimes no comment is needed. So it was of Vietnam when victorious Gen. Giap later remarked that that the American Left was “essential to our strategy.” He elaborated to the Wall Street Journal: “Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.”

And Giap added that anti-war activists, “Gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war.”

Posted by Pat Dollard 14 Comments

China’s Empire of Lies

China’s Empire of Lies

EDITOR’S NOTE: City Journal has published a brilliant essay about rising China. An excerpt appears below.

The Empire of Lies
By Guy Sorman

The twenty-first century will not belong to China.

The Western press is full of stories these days on China’s arrival as a superpower, some even heralding, or warning, that the future may belong to her. Western political and business delegations stream into Beijing, confident of China’s economy, which continues to grow rapidly. Investment pours in. Crowning China’s new status, Beijing will host the 2008 Summer Olympics.

But China’s success is, at least in part, a mirage. True, 200 million of her subjects, fortunate to be working for an expanding global market, increasingly enjoy a middle-class standard of living. The remaining 1 billion, however, remain among the poorest and most exploited people in the world, lacking even minimal rights and public services. Popular discontent simmers, especially in the countryside, where it often flares into violent confrontation with Communist Party authorities. China’s economic “miracle” is rotting from within.

The Party’s primary concern is not improving the lives of the downtrodden; it seeks power more than it seeks social development. It expends extraordinary energy in suppressing Chinese freedoms—the media operate under suffocating censorship, and political opposition can result in expulsion or prison—even as it tries to seduce the West, which has conferred greater legitimacy on it than do the Chinese themselves.

Click here to continue reading.

NBC cameraman flies Mexican flag at march

NBC cameraman flies Mexican flag at march
Videographer for Houston affiliate sparks angry response from locals

Posted: May 1, 2007
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2007

A cameraman for the NBC affiliate in Houston was captured on home video sporting a Mexican flag on his camera while covering a rally in the Texas city that supported illegal immigrants, drawing angry shouts from counter-protesters.In the first of two clips posted on, a counter-protester with a bull horn can be heard condemning the cameraman’s flag.

“Why does Channel 2 News have a Mexican flag on their camera?” the man asked.

Videographer from NBC affiliate KPRC-TV in Houston displays Mexican flag while covering an immigration march Saturday in Houston

Houston’s NBC station is KPRC.

KPRC News Director Skip Valet told WND the cameraman’s flying of the Mexican flag broke station rules.

“It violates our policy, because we’re always objective observers of these situations,” Valet told WND. “We don’t take sides in news stories; we cover them. That policy was clearly violated.”

The cameraman has been disciplined, Valet said, but he could not disclose details, because it’s a personnel matter.

Valet said the employee has been with the station for about five years. He went to cover the event by himself, the news director said, with the exception of an intern.

The second YouTube clip shows a woman, after considerable protest of the cameraman, mounting an American flag alongside the Mexican banner on the camera. The cameraman helps the woman secure the U.S. flag in place.

A female voice from among the counter-demonstrators then is heard shouting angrily into a bullhorn.

“We are going to let Americans across the country know what you have done today. You are a disgrace, you need to be shut down. … ”

The confrontation took place Saturday as hundreds of people marched to Houston’s Mason Park for a rally in support of illegal immigrants. The Houston Chronicle reported the marchers blew whistles, banged on drums and chanted through loudspeakers as they carried U.S. and Mexican flags. Banners included one that said: “Amor sin la frontera: Love has no borders.”

The paper said the counter-demonstrators were representatives of the group U.S. Border Watch, who stood across the street and waved American flags, chanting back at the marchers.

Curtis Collier, president of U.S. Border Watch, told the Chronicle his group is working every day to “save the sovereignty of this nation.”

He believes more Americans are aware now of the issue of illegal immigration.

“I do think the American people are now aware of the problems – illegal immigration is putting a strain our on schools, our social services system and our justice system,” Collier said.







Monday April 30,2007


THE wail of the mosque is signalling the end of traditional British justice.  

For centuries, the principle of equality before the law for all citizens has been at the heart of our society.

It has been one of the cornerstones of our liberty, stretching back to the time of Magna Carta. Now, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of multi-­culturalism, it is under attack as never before.

In a political climate of craven appeasement towards Muslim extremism, the Islamification of our country is steadily accelerating. Across large swathes of urban Britain, Muslim practices, customs, schooling and dress-codes now prevail. But perhaps the most dramatic indicator of this process comes from the West Yorkshire town of Dewsbury, where Muslim elders have decided to set up their own Islamic court to impose Sharia law in civil disputes within their communities.

The misguided creed of anti-racist tolerance could herald a dark new era of judicial intolerance


Crucial issues such as divorce and child custody are settled by a panel of four senior Muslim clerics and scholars. The age-old British attachment to trial by jury or by magistrates is at risk from an utterly alien Islamic code imported from regions far less civilised and democratic than our own. 

Effectively, the integ­rity of British law has been eclipsed in parts of Dewsbury by quasi-judicial religious zealotry. In this once proud Yorkshire mill town, there are now two legal systems in operation for civil matters, one for Muslims and one for the rest of the population. This is a recipe for more division in a place already notorious for its links to fanatical Islam. Dewsbury was, after all, the home town of Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers.

The establishment of Sharia law will only increase the trend towards Muslim separatism. The Government is partly to blame as its enthusiastic promotion of the dogma of cultural diversity has encouraged ethnic minority groups to cling to their own traditions rather than embrace Britain’s. But the self-styled community leaders of Dewsbury are also displaying a repellent arrogance towards British law, which they seem to believe is inferior to their own code.

Well, if they really think Sharia law is better than our own, why don’t they go and live in some brutal theocracy such as Saudi Arabia rather than trying to destroy the judicial fabric of Britain? It is sickening that they want to have it both ways: enjoying the fruits of our prosperous society while demanding that their superstitious, barbaric, mis­ogynistic ideology be given official legal status.

Indeed, it is this misogyny that is perhaps the most sinister aspect of the arrival of Sharia law in Britain. For the Islamic code enshrines the institutional oppression of women, treating them as second-class citizens. A wife mistreated or beaten by her spouse is hardly likely to receive much justice from the bearded patriarchs of an Islamic court, for whom anti-female discrimination is part of their theology. 

It is telling that when there was a proposal to introduce Sharia law for Muslims in Ontario, Canada, the most vociferous opposition came from female Muslim immigrants who had fled from states such as Iran. “I came here to escape Sharia law,” said one Iranian exile. “Under it, a woman is worth half a man. She has no rights.”

Thankfully, even in politically correct Canada, the proposition was quashed. But Britain under Blair is less robust. For the Sharia court in Dewsbury will not be an isolated case. With our Government too enfeebled to challenge it, the idea will spread. Other Muslim neighbourhoods will start to impose Islamic rules. And the scope of the Sharia judges will be expanded far beyond mere matrimonial and child custody disputes. This could be just the first step towards the creation of localised Taliban regimes in Muslim areas of British cities, enforcing their own distorted moral codes, clamping down on alcohol, imposing new forms of censorship, promoting anti-western attitudes and peddling yet more grievances against the British state.

Lurking in the background is the threat of terrorism if demands for special treatment are not met. MJ Akbar, a Muslim scholar, recently made this menacing comment on any attempt to resist Sharia law: “A Muslim does not have to live in a Muslim state but he must have the right to live by his divine law. If that is denied then he is in Dar al Harb or the House of War and jihad becomes obligatory upon him.”

Muslims continually bleat about so-called “Islamophobia” but the isolation they experience from mainstream society is of their own making. British society has bent over backwards to accommodate Islam. We now have state-funded Muslim schools and Muslim-friendly mortgages. Mosques have been erected across Britain while, unlike in France, the hijab headscarf is allowed in schools.

Only last week, the Govern­ment announced that it is planning to introduce Islamic-compliant security bonds in the City. But none of this is ever good enough. The more we fall to our knees, the more emboldened radical Muslims become. That is because we have made the grievous error of thinking that Islam is another religion, like Christianity or Buddhism, based on the individual relationship between the believer and God. In reality Islam, certainly in its modern manifestation, is as much an aggressive political ideology as a faith. The religious and the political realms are merged under Islam, which prescribes a mode of governance for society.

That is why Muslim states are so authoritarian. And it is also why the advent of Sharia law in Britain is so terrifying. It will bring about the end of liberal democracy unless it is stopped. 

The misguided creed of anti-racist tolerance could herald a dark new era of judicial intolerance.




May 2, 2007 — President Bush last night resolutely vetoed an Iraq-war-funding bill that would have tied the hands of his military commanders and forced a U.S. capitulation to bloody-handed terrorists in a matter of months.”This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops,” Bush said. “[That] makes no sense.”Indeed it doesn’t.

Bush noted that congressional Democrats had made their point – they’re against the war – and that now it is time to move forward and fund U.S. troops.

He’s right. But it hardly undoes the damage Democrats already have done.

Senate Majority Leader Harry “White Flag” Reid and House Speaker Nancy “Miss Syria” Pelosi knew very well that they didn’t have enough votes to override Bush’s long-promised veto of their bill.

But they passed it and sent it to Bush – solely to score political points.

It was meant as a symbolic gesture – as indeed it was.

A symbol . . . of weakness.

Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and others will surely interpret a bill calling for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq before it has been stabilized as a sign that this nation has gone all wobbly.

In Iraq and the Middle East, in particular, the mullahs and Islamists can fairly conclude it’s only a matter of time before Democrats force defeat upon America.

And that the next stage of their war against the West can soon begin.

It also sends a message, as Bush noted, to America’s allies: When the going gets tough, America – with the Democrats leading the way – starts running. So why fight by America’s side?

And one more thing: Congress’ passage of the bill – Bush’s veto notwithstanding – does enormous harm to the troops in theater themselves.

Not only because it delays urgently needed funding for equipment and munitions to support them.

But also because it gives such encouragement to the very people trying to kill them.

Now Congress will go back and finally get serious about funding the troops.

But much damage has been done.

The Democrats – Reid and Pelosi, in particular – have dealt the troops, and the nation, an enormous setback.

They’ve made victory in Iraq harder to achieve. All for political motives.

Democrats ought to be ashamed.

And Americans should take appropriate note.

The Kurds build a healthy society; why can’t the Palestinians?

The Kurds build a healthy society; why can’t the


Ed Lasky
Marty Peretz, writing in The Spine blog at The New Republic, makes an illuminating contrast of the Kurds with the Palestinians (and Israelis, too).

… the Kurds followed the example of what the Zionists did from the twenties on. For several decades, even under the raging reign of Saddam Hussein, they built an educational system and a health system, they had a working Kurdish government that no one recognized, they paid attention to all of the requirements for civil society. [snip]
Everyone is passionate for a Palestinian state. There have been at least two declarations of independence proclaiming it. 120-odd countries have already recognized the state of Palestine. The Palestinians have embassies all over the world, and the world’s countries have representation in it. Even the government of Israel wants there to be a Palestine, and three of the previous governments have also expressed support and worked for a Palestinian state. In fact, I suppose I want a Palestinian state, too. But the Palestinians don’t have a state, and it’s not because Israel failed to give them one or negotiate one with them.
The contrast is startling: no one wants a Kurdish state and yet there is one….  I’ll wager a bet. The Kurds will be represented as a state in international councils long before the people of Palestine stop killing each other.

Democrats and free speech

Democrats and free speech

Ed Lasky
Dems claim to love whistelblowers, leakers, and defend as free speech flag burning, Serrano’s Piss Christ, etc. But how about defending airline passengers who fear hijackers and don’t want to face lawsuits from the likes of CAIR? Of course, it falls to the GOP to push Hoyer and Pelosi to support the “John Doe” law protecting them. Audrey Hudson reports in the Washington Times:

Key Republicans are lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protect legislation that prohibits airline passengers from being sued if they report suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.
Republican leaders used a procedural motion to insert that provision into a transportation-safety bill last month, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, has threatened to bar from becoming law all language entered into bills under such “motions to recommit.”
“We cannot afford to wait any longer to protect individuals who seek to do the right thing by speaking up to prevent a terrorist attack,” more than a dozen Republicans wrote to Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, today in a letter obtained in advance by The Washington Times.

Meanwhile, Senate Dems send a message to David Broder: don’t criticize our leader, Harry Reid. The New York Sun reports

So the entire Democratic caucus in the United States Senate – 50 senators – has sent a letter to the Washington Post attacking the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, for a column in which Mr. Broder dared to criticize their leader for his preemptive surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. “We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid’s leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column,” the letter says. “In contrast to Mr. Broder’s insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb.”
Mr. Broder’s offense? The Pulitzer-prize winning columnist and reporter, 77, wrote a column criticizing the Democratic leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, for Mr. Reid’s comment that the Iraq war “is lost.” Mr. Reid, Mr. Broder wrote “is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as ‘one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington.'”

Their commitment to free speech certainly seems selective.

Media Target: The US Military

Media Target: The US Military

By Gerd Schroeder

The US military, the last bastion of creditability in the war, is now the primary target of the media and the enemies of the war.  Almost like a plan. Not hatched as a coherent and complete arrangement in some dark, smoke filled room. No conspiracy is alleged. Rather, There is a certain momentum that is a product of groupthink. This confluence of widely-shared perceptions and attitudes has taken on a life of its own, the like-minded feeding off the ideas of others, then amplified in the media.
They smell blood in the water, and turn their attention to the military.  Their reasoning is that if they can turn the American People against the military, then the war effort will become unsustainable.  But they must be very careful in manipulating the story.  They have learned their lesson from Viet Nam.  The backlash from attacking the troops directly robbed them of much of their credibility.  They will not make that mistake again. 
Seize on critics from within
This time the plan is discredit the military from the inside.  They do this by seizing on genuine critics, disgruntled retirees, infighting dissidents, and a few dupes and naive people in the military to discredit the organization as a whole.  This is where we are right now.        
After writing an article in the Armed Forces Journal titled A failure in generalship  lambasting the general officer corps for not only failing in Iraq but lying to Congress and the American People many people may think that the author, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yinling is on the highway to hell with his carrier in the military.  If you figured that, I believe that you have figured wrong.  It is rooted in popular miss conceptions about what the military is like from an outsider’s point of view, which has been carefully built and manipulated by pop culture and the media for years. 
That is not to say that I agree with LTC Yinling.  I think that many of his arguments are, quite frankly, bull; but the military is really a very introspective organization.  Anyone that has seen an After Action Review of a military operation or training event understands that.  They are brutally honest and open.  No one is spared.  We all understand that respecting thin skins is a recipe for death.  The reviews are not personal attacks; they are honest assessments.
LTC Yingling’s arguments are not new. The points in his article have been debated in the Army for many years.  It is not a bombshell indictment of the military leaders the media is making it out to be.  He used Clausewitz, and other military thinker’s writings and ideas to make his point.  Look at the article Toxic Leadership, by Colonel George E Reed.  The article, written in 2004, takes on many of the same points that LTC Yingling’s article does, albeit in a more tactful manner. 
For me, the article is very stimulating, though very flawed.  Through articles like LTC Yingling’s Col. Reed’s the military stays vital and improves thought debate and exchange of ideas.
Instead, let us look at why the media has suddenly picked this story up after it has been debated in the military for years.  The media are all in a flutter because they think that they can spin this article as an indictment of the war.  They do this by pointing at the generals, and in a sly, almost unperceivable way, the media almost seem to whisper in our ears: “see, the military is bad, they aren’t worthy of our support, they failed, we can’t trust them, we need to get out of Iraq before anyone else dies because of these fascist brutes.”  Some few have come right out and said it, but most just allude to it. 
The military’s image
The military image for many people is of an environment with no freethinking, and creativity.  The image is one of an organization of mindless, strict adherence to illogical and outdated thinking and morals.  One of heavy-handed, overbearing, egotistical Neanderthals bent on world domination, violence, and hate. Backwoods rednecks.  Unintelligent dead-enders.  Look at movies like A Few Good Men, Stripes, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now.  This is the image propagated by the pop culture. 
You may say: “that may be true for some, but not for me.”  I ask you then to think back to when you considered the military.  Most men and a few women do this at some point.  For some it is just fleeting.  For others they study it deeply, but I think most, if not all, men at some point or another have considered joining the military.  Why do so few out of so many in this country actually serve?  Is it because of the ideas that have been formed from our experiences with American pop culture? 
A high percentage of the serving military has a close family member that served or is serving.  It is a generational tradition of pride, and a feeling of duty.  That is not to say that those that don’t serve are any less of a person for taking a different path; clearly not everyone can serve even if they wanted to.  However; if you reflect on it you will find than many of your ideas about the military that are unflattering have probably come from pop culture and the media.  The enemies of the war in the media use the pop culture’s long cultivated prejudice of the military to forward their objective against the war.   
Over the last year, maybe two, it is increasingly difficult to find not any positive reporting on Iraq and the larger war on terrorism, or any positive stories of the US Military at large.  There are some rare exceptions with some local news outlets.  Google “Iraq” it and see for yourself.  It is even more pervasive in the international media.
More examples
Look at the resurrection of the Jessica Lynch, and the Spencer Tillman stories as show trails against of the military in Henry Waxman’s House Committee last week.  The message: ‘The military lied,  The generals ordered the lies.  This in turn promotes the thought: ‘The military is bad.’ 
There is not need to rehash the continuing assaults by the press and the pentagon officials that leak politically motivated falsehoods about the Marines in Haditha.  John Kerry, and John Martha’s attacks on the military are like a drum beat. 
How about retired generals like MG Batiste, used willingly, in mock impeachment trails by Democrats; or BG Janis Karpinski, used by the press as a martyr, sacrificed by the military for Abu Grab, testifying to hostile governments about the evil US military.
Refer back to the countless stories about Guantanamo Bay, and false accusations of torture; many in the media choosing to believe accusations of known terrorists over the military, and false stories of Koran desecration causing riots across the Islam World. 
Look at the personal attacks on the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Pace, because he dared voice an opinion on homosexuals.  They implied that the general was unfit because he dared have a personal moral judgment; or attacks by retired Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General (Retired) Shalikashvili, on the military’s policy of the so-called ‘Don’t ask don’t tell policy’ of which he oversaw the implementation.  
Now the latest insult by Senator Reid (D-NV) that the war is lost and General Petraeus is lying if he says the surge is working. 
The press is conducting an information war against the military to discredit it, and by so doing hopes to collapse the remaining support for “Bush’s War”.
All reasonable people understand the absolute critical need to win the war in Iraq.  It is helpful, desirable, and needed to debate in good faith as long as the joint objective is winning in Iraq.  Without a doubt, the key to winning this war is the will of the American People to continue supporting the fight.  Each downtick in the polls for support of the war by the American People lowers the possibility that the military will be able to carry on the war to a victory. 
It is not that we lack the capacity.  We, in the military, have the will in spades.  But we are, in the end, the Military of the American People, and must have their support; not only to fund the war, but also to maintain morale and a strong fighting spirit.  This support of the US Military by the American People is the goal that most in the mainstream media hope to undermine.  Why they would do this is a topic for a different article.  The fact is that they are actively trying to discredit the US Military.     

A final question for the media

What would happen in the war in Iraq and to the terrorists across the world if our press put as much effort into supporting the war that they do in trying to sabotage it?             
Gerd Schroeder is a Major in the United States Army; he has served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  His personal views do not represent the views of the US Army or Department of Defense

Republicans lobby Pelosi to protect ‘John Does’

Republicans lobby Pelosi to protect ‘John Does’

Here’s an important update on the Flying Imam/CAIR attempt to make our airports safe for jihad terrorists.

By Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

Key Republicans are lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protect legislation that prohibits airline passengers from being sued if they report suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.Republican leaders used a procedural motion to insert that provision into a transportation-safety bill last month, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, has threatened to bar from becoming law all language entered into bills under such “motions to recommit.”

“We cannot afford to wait any longer to protect individuals who seek to do the right thing by speaking up to prevent a terrorist attack,” more than a dozen Republicans wrote to Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, today in a letter obtained in advance by The Washington Times.

The legislation responds to a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams after they were removed from a Nov. 20 U.S. Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior. The lawsuit was filed on March 12 and also named as defendants any yet-unknown “John Doe” passengers who reported the imams’ behavior.

“This represents a startling precedent, one that could freeze the very behavior law enforcement has encouraged,” the letter said.